This book is Nader's post-2000 analysis of why he ran for president, and how the media and the two major parties viewed his run.
It is the definitive explanation of Nader's reasoning -- in all the necessary detail -- yet mainstream media still question Nader's motivations as if this book did not exist to explain it without their guessing.

And indeed, that is a large part of the reason Nader ran in 2000 -- because the mainstream media will not read his books, but instead ask him only about the horserace aspects of running, and participate in keeping Nader and other third-party candidates from running.
Nader's reasons for running are all laid out here -- we try to order them in what we think Nader ranks their importance:

Nader sees a "democracy gap" where citizens no longer have a substantial voice, as illustrated by his announcement speech (p. 326-327)

Nader blames corporate influence for the lack of a voice for citizens, with complicity by both the government and the two major parties, as illustrated in his critique of corporations (p. 36)

Nader sees the Democratic Party as having lost touch with its progressive roots, as illustrated in his condemnation of the lack of progressive values in the 2000 Democratic Party Platform (p. 12-13)

Nader sees the "Commission on Presidential Debates" (which despite its high-sounding name, is actually a private corporation run jointly by the Democrats and Republicans) as a primary culprit in blocking access to a serious debate durnig the presidential race, as illustrated in his critique of the CPD (p. 223-227)

To anyone who was willing to listen, Nader made clear those 4 critiques during the 2000 presidential race.
But his run in 2004 caused many former supporters (including myself, in the interest of full disclosure) to stop being willing to listen.
Many otherwise progressive-minded people in 2004 started considering Nader a political activist rather than a consumer activist -- and hence neglected his long and worthwhile history of accomplishments.

So why run again in 2008? Nader will sue (as he did in 2004) to get into the Presidential debates -- in part, he considers himself the "point man" to push for a more open political dialogue. As Nader ages (he's now 74 years old), he wants to prepare the playing field for his successors. Nader is in a unique position to attack the problems in the political system that keep out people like him -- so attacking them now means more people like him can have a voice, and have political accomplishments like Nader's, well into the future.

I consider that the psychological basis for Nader's running in 2008. I think he sees himself as the American Socrates -- his elder years spent pin-pricking the system to remind them what is wrong. For those of you who don't quite recall Plato's Dialogues from high school, I've prepared a comparison chart:

Socrates

Nader

Socrates was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, which in practice meant he was annoying the citizenry by pointing out their problems, and they wanted him to just stop.

Nader was accused of causing Bush to win the 2000 election, which in practice meant he was annoying the citizenry by pointing out the problems of the two-party system, and the two parties (and later the citizenry as a whole) wanted him to just stop.

Socrates was judged guilty by a majority of a jury of his peers. As punishment, Socrates suggested he be rewarded with free dinners.

Nader was judged guilty of being a spoiler by the majority of progressives who voted for him in 2000. Nader, in response, ran again in 2004, as unapologetically as Socrates mocked his verdict.

Socrates was sentenced to death. Socrates' judge really meant for Socrates to take the judgment seriously and leave Athens.

Nader was sentenced to political death in 2004 by his former progressive constituency, receiving only 463,000 votes compared to the 2.9 million he received in 2000. Nader's former constituents really meant for Nader to take seriously their pleas to leave politics.

Socrates was offered an escape into exile, widely believed to have been allowed by the authorities, right before his execution. Socrates refused on principle to escape, even when the prison door was open.

Nader was offered an escape from political death by endorsing Gore at the last minute in 2000, and/or Kerry at the last minute in 2004. Nader refused on principle to back down, even when an honorable way out was offered.

Socrates carried out his own execution because he believed in obeying the law, above his own life.

Nader similarly believed in 2000 and 2004 in serving out the wishes of his supporters, whom, Nader claimed, did not support him so he could endorse someone else at the last minute.

Socrates died, but the story of his trial and execution (Plato's Dialogues) became his most lasting legacy.

Nader lost badly in 2004, and will likely lose even more badly in 2008, but the story of his persistent principled struggle may too become his most lasting legacy.

Well, that's just my take -- whether Nader thinks about Socrates I'm not so sure. But he certainly thinks a lot about principles -- as Socrates did -- and to understand Nader's choices in 2008, one must think about those same principles. Nader's principles as applied to non-politics are frequently forgotten in the helter-skelter of presidential politics. If you need some reminding of them, read the excerpts of this book.

-- Jesse Gordon, jesse@OnTheIssues.org, April 2008

OnTheIssues.org excerpts:(click on issues for details)

AbortionRalph Nader: Roe v. Wade is not at risk, even from GOP Supreme Court.